Lindelof talks title, and time gap

[Therin of Andor]

^ Did that little prologue sequence in the VHS UK/Europe release ever wind up included in any US tapes?

I don't recall general US fans knowing about it till the DVDs:
http://youtu.be/6VkCW7Xdpsc

Although that's not the European opening title at the end of the clip, because the antenna probe's ball's forming the "o".

Okay, I just tweaked Memory Alpha a little; it inferred that ST III didn't get a theatrical release here! We certainly did get that film, but our copies of the VHS videos of ST IV carried the prologue because CIC-Taft Australia usually used the UK masters and artwork, and were not even permitted to correct text errors on already-approved box art.

As for the Spock/Kirk/punk/cop daybill, my memory is that Australia got local versions of the regular orange-toned US daybill. Just the date of release was changed.


ST IV UK daybill by Therin of Andor, on Flickr

I didn't see the above, truly bizarre, UK/European daybill version until it turned up at a convention auction in New Zealand a few years later, to great hilarity. I'm not prepared to change the picture credit over on the file uploaded to Memory Alpha (which specifies Australia as the source) because the fine print is too small to read - and it may well have an Australian printer listed at the bottom - but if we did get this one Down Under, it might have been released in the video shops when the VHS was launched, rather than in cinemas.

 

[Greg Cox]

You know, I sometimes think Paramount should just break down and retitle Movie #4 "Star Trek: The One with the Whales" since that's how much pretty the entire world refers to it. Only hardcore Trekkies know that the actual title is "The Voyage Home."

Haha, yep...

It's actually a pretty good test for determing just how much of a Trekkie someone is. Nobody but us hardcore types know what the title of that movie is!

(In fact, in my experience, the average moviegoer has no idea that there have been eleven movies so far. In general, they remember Khan, Spock dying, "the one with the whales," and maybe the Borg and, of course, the most recent movie. They're usually surprised to find out just how many Trek movies there are!)

 

[Therin of Andor]

Going back to look for that image of Kirk, Spock and the punk rock kid. LoL

ST IV UK daybill by Therin of Andor, on Flickr

Notice that they airbrushed a white band to both of Spock's uniform sleeves, over the top of his Vulcan robes worn in the film - and left his boots white. And gave him the same colour trousers as Kirk's admiralty leisure suit.

 

[Quinton O'Connor]

Huh, weird stuff then, Therin. Either my grandmother was an internationally prolific bootlegger of VHS recordings, or I simply saw the prologue many years later somehow or another and it was all garbled in my mind. Naturally, as a Trekkie I'd rather believe in the fantastical if possible. My grandmother was something of a civil rights activist, so perhaps she was a black market VHS entrepreneur as well!

Quite true, Greg. Just recently, one of my non-Trekkie friends asked me to catch them up on the movies because they "wanted to know everything" in preparation for the next one. I explained that there were six television renditions as well, so I briefly went over all that. Then I started describing the movies, and before I could get to "the one with the Borg", they were like, "wait, wait, how many of these damn things are there?"

 

[Captaindemotion]

You know, I sometimes think Paramount should just break down and retitle Movie #4 "Star Trek: The One with the Whales" since that's how much pretty the entire world refers to it. Only hardcore Trekkies know that the actual title is "The Voyage Home."

Star Trek: The Really Boring One

Star Trek: The One With The Guy From Fantasy Island

Star Trek: The One With The Guy From Back To The Future

Star Trek: The One With The Whales

Star Trek: The Really Silly One

Star Trek: The One That's About Glasnost, Apparently

Star Trek: The One Where Kirk Dies

Star Trek: The One With The Farmer Out of Babe

Star Trek: What Was That One About Anyway?

Star Trek: I Didn't See It (soon to be re-titled The One With Bane)

 

[zephramc]

Star Trek 2
Star Trek Too
Some Kind of Star Trek
Another Star Trek

 

[C.E. Evans]

I do think that whatever title is chosen, it should be reflective of the theme of the film; so something like "Starship Enterprise" or a variation of it feels too vague and general.

So was "The Dark Knight," but it worked for the movie.

Not at all.

Actually, very much so. By itself, it's just a vague and general title to most people outside of geekdom. Stick Batman with it, though, and then everyone knows what you're talking about.

"Starship Enterprise" on the other hand conveys nothing more than is already known.

Actually, it immediately conveys "Star Trek" (or "Star Track") to the public. Only "...to boldly go where no man has gone before" and "beam me up, Scotty" are more associated with Trek to the average person on the street, IMO.

 

[UFO]

So was "The Dark Knight," but it worked for the movie.

Not at all.

Actually, very much so. By itself, it's just a vague and general title to most people outside of geekdom. Stick Batman with it, though, and then everyone knows what you're talking about.

"Starship Enterprise" on the other hand conveys nothing more than is already known.

Actually, it immediately conveys "Star Trek" (or "Star Track") to the public. Only "...to boldly go where no man has gone before" and "beam me up, Scotty" are more associated with Trek to the average person on the street, IMO.

"Sticking Batman with it" is of course a given, since we are going to know when we hear it that it is a title of a Batman movie. There's not much point in publicising a movie by telling us the title but nothing else about it! On the other hand, if all we had was the title, we still wouldn't know if it referred to a film, book or game etc, so a movie title is always going to have basic context.
　
Anyway, Susanmary428's point is that "Starship Enterprise" doesn't tell us anything about the film's theme. This is of course the issue, not whether or not the title tells us if its a Batman or Star Trek movie (already known).
　
So, as per my last post, "The Dark Knight" tells us more about the theme of the movie than "Starship Enterprise" does because the latter is "vague and general" which "The Dark Knight" isn't. I.e. given it is only three words, it fit what happened in the movie. "Starship Enterprise" just tells us a ship called the Enterprise is in the next movie (!). Not that I'm saying its a bad title however.

Edit: I think that's why "The One with the Whales" is a better title than "The Voyage Home". Whales are more important and significant to STIV.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Not at all.

Actually, very much so. By itself, it's just a vague and general title to most people outside of geekdom. Stick Batman with it, though, and then everyone knows what you're talking about.

"Starship Enterprise" on the other hand conveys nothing more than is already known.

Actually, it immediately conveys "Star Trek" (or "Star Track") to the public. Only "...to boldly go where no man has gone before" and "beam me up, Scotty" are more associated with Trek to the average person on the street, IMO.

"Sticking Batman with it" is of course a given, since we are going to know when we hear it that it is a title of a Batman movie. There's not much point in publicising a movie by telling us the title but nothing else about it! On the other hand, if all we had was the title, we still wouldn't know if it referred to a film, book or game etc, so a movie title is always going to have basic context.
　
Anyway, Susanmary428's point is that "Starship Enterprise" doesn't tell us anything about the film's theme.

That's really irrelvant because if the main purpose of the movie's title is to convey to the general public that it is a follow-up to 2009's Star Trek, then "The Starship Enterprise" is as good as any and serves that purpose very nicely, especially if the story centers on a major incident involving the Starship Enterprise.

 

[UFO]

　
Anyway, Susanmary428's point is that "Starship Enterprise" doesn't tell us anything about the film's theme.

That's really irrelvant because if the main purpose of the movie's title is to convey to the general public that it is a follow-up to 2009's Star Trek, then "The Starship Enterprise" is as good as any and serves that purpose very nicely, especially if the story centers on a major incident involving the Starship Enterprise.

But it's not irrelevant to which of the two titles gives us the most "new" information, all other things being equal, which is what we were discussing.

And of course "The Starship Enterprise" does not actually indicate that the next movie is a follow up to ST09 any more than "Enterprise" suggested that that series was a follow-up to TOS. As I said, we need a lot more context, which of course would exist in the trailer, so we might as well have a title that reflects to some degree what the movie is "about" (if anything). Such a title would bring the movie to mind more easily. Not something I am likely to want to do but ... .

Moreover we don't know that the Enterprise is that central a "character". But if it is, then you appear to be now saying the title should be descriptive of the movie, which I believe is more akin to Susanmary428's view.

 

[Greg Cox]

We may be overthinking this. I doubt that many moviegoers expect a title to convey the plot of a movie, let alone its "theme," or even pay all that much attention to the title when it's part of an ongoing series. Did anybody on Earth decide NOT to buy a ticket to "The Voyage Home" or "The Undiscovered Country" because they found the titles too cryptic? Or did they just show up at the box office and ask for "Two tickets for Star Trek, please."

I mean, people bought tickets to "Quantum of Solace," right?

 

[Sector 7]

But then we'd all be called Questies.

Please! We serious fans prefer the term "Questers".

NO WAY!! At the convention they were called "fellow Questerians"!

C'mon, are you guys real Nerds or not? Besides, Galaxy Quest IS a Star Trek movie, at least in my canon.

 

[C.E. Evans]

　
Anyway, Susanmary428's point is that "Starship Enterprise" doesn't tell us anything about the film's theme.

That's really irrelvant because if the main purpose of the movie's title is to convey to the general public that it is a follow-up to 2009's Star Trek, then "The Starship Enterprise" is as good as any and serves that purpose very nicely, especially if the story centers on a major incident involving the Starship Enterprise.

But it's not irrelevant to which of the two titles gives us the most "new" information, all other things being equal, which is what we were discussing.

It's not what I'm discussing, however, and never was. I'm merely pointing out that it's as good a title as any for a sequel.

 

[JarodRussell]

Arrr, it's so exciting to know that the writer of Lost and Prometheus is heavily involved in this film.

 

[Christopher]

We may be overthinking this. I doubt that many moviegoers expect a title to convey the plot of a movie, let alone its "theme," or even pay all that much attention to the title when it's part of an ongoing series. Did anybody on Earth decide NOT to buy a ticket to "The Voyage Home" or "The Undiscovered Country" because they found the titles too cryptic? Or did they just show up at the box office and ask for "Two tickets for Star Trek, please."

For what it's worth, when I went to the theater earlier this week and asked for a ticket for The Dark Knight Rises, the ticket clerk wasn't sure what I meant until I added, "Batman."

Besides, Galaxy Quest IS a Star Trek movie, at least in my canon.

It always strikes me as odd that people see GQ as purely a Trek parody, when it's also satirizing a lot of things that were features of other sci-fi shows, like cheesy FX (Lost in Space, Doctor Who), boy-genius crewmembers (LiS, Galactica 1980), female crewmembers who did nothing but look pretty (Athena on Galactica, though okay, Uhura sometimes qualified), and the like. Not to mention the implied yellowface casting of Tech Sergeant Chen played by a non-East Asian actor (though Tony Shalhoub is Lebanese-American); I can't think of any real instances of that in the regular casts of '60s through '80s sci-fi shows, though of course there is Ricardo Montalban playing Khan.

Don't get me wrong, there's clearly a lot of ST influence in GQ -- the portrayal of the cast and the fandom, the design of the ship and technology -- but there's a lot of other SFTV being parodied too.

 

[Greg Cox]

For what it's worth, when I went to the theater earlier this week and asked for a ticket for The Dark Knight Rises, the ticket clerk wasn't sure what I meant until I added, "Batman."

I just cut to the chase and asked for a ticket to the 12:10 showing of "Batman." . . . .


And, seriously, I doubt that anybody has ever shown up at the box office and asked for "Two adults for Star Trek V: The Final Frontier" or whatever, or that anyone worries about too much about the title when going to see a Trek movie.

"Hey, honey, want to go see the new Star Trek movie?"

"What's the subtitle?"

"Um, Insurrection, I think."

"Hmm. I'm not sure that title tells me enough about the essential theme of the film. Let's stay home and watch Law & Order instead."

 

[Set Harth]

For what it's worth, when I went to the theater earlier this week and asked for a ticket for The Dark Knight Rises, the ticket clerk wasn't sure what I meant until I added, "Batman."

It's refreshing to know that our high schools are still turning out such quality product.

 

[UFO]

Arrr, it's so exciting to know that the writer of Lost and Prometheus is heavily involved in this film.

For what it's worth, when I went to the theater earlier this week and asked for a ticket for The Dark Knight Rises, the ticket clerk wasn't sure what I meant until I added, "Batman."

You guys are on fire! I shouldn't laugh. That's really just sad.

It's refreshing to know that our high schools are still turning out such quality product.

Yep, and great dedication to "product knowledge" as well.

And, seriously, I doubt that anybody has ever shown up at the box office and asked for "Two adults for Star Trek V: The Final Frontier" or whatever, or that anyone worries about too much about the title when going to see a Trek movie.

"Hey, honey, want to go see the new Star Trek movie?"

"What's the subtitle?"

"Um, Insurrection, I think."

"Hmm. I'm not sure that title tells me enough about the essential theme of the film. Let's stay home and watch Law & Order instead."

I'm guessing that title problem was just an excuse not to go! But seriously, you may have the wrong end of the stick. If they are going to have a title, or sub-title, for any movie, it might as well invoke a significant aspect of the film. Its more a memory jogger when, say ten years down the track, you are trying to think of what a movie you liked is called. I doubt anyone is claiming its a big deal much beyond that.

I just cut to the chase and asked for a ticket to the 12:10 showing of "Batman." . . . .

Do you and Christopher have the same local theatre, perchance?

 

[Christopher]

Greg and I live in different parts of the country.

 

[UFO]

Greg and I live in different parts of the country.

I just wondered if Greg may have had prior experience with your ticket clerk and had learned from that!